The bottom of the American is so bad that it's actually helping the top

[HooperScooper]

I think Gary Parrish has been reading the Boneyard for article ideas. The AAC is like a third world country. Rich people and poor people and no middle class.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...n-is-so-bad-that-its-actually-helping-the-top

The top half of the American Athletic Conference (Cincinnati, Louisville, SMU, Memphis and UConn) is a combined 31-2 against the bottom half of the American Athletic Conference (Houston, Rutgers, South Florida, Temple and UCF), and the reason is because the top half is way better than the bottom half. Nobody in the top half is lower than 34th in the KenPom ratings while nobody in the bottom half is higher than 165th, and that gap -- that 131-spotgap between fifth and sixth in the league standings -- is the reason why the American Athletic Conference will likely place five schools in next month's NCAA tournament.

Simply put, the bottom half isn't good enough to threaten the top half.

Oh man, we have one of those 2 losses. What was the other one?

 

[Fishy]

Probably USF's win over SMU.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

The AAC is like a third world country the U.S.. Rich people and poor people and no middle class.

There ya go.

 

[upstater]

The conference didn't live up to what I imagined for this year. The bottom half is really bad. But, coming into the year, UCF and USF beat UConn the last time we played them. Temple was giving people fits in the NCAAT last year. Hell, UConn lost to Houston THIS year. And who gives a damn about Rutgers? So, it's not a matter of these being sucky teams in a sucky conference, it's a matter of them sucking really badly all at once and all together. The suckage has little to do with conference affiliation. Two were BE teams, one was a good A10, and the CUSA team actually beat UConn.

Now, next year when Louisville leaves and Tulane, Tulsa and East Carolina arrive (oh my god), then you can blame it on the conference.

But not this year.

 

[Clockshop]

Why read anything Gary Parrish writes?

 

[Waquoit]

The conference didn't live up to what I imagined for this year.

Hasn't it? I think we pretty much expected 4 good teams, instead we have 5. Like that commercial with the kids says, more is better.

 

[upstater]

Hasn't it? I think we pretty much expected 4 good teams, instead we have 5. Like that commercial with the kids says, more is better.

I expected these 5 teams to be good. I'm on record as expecting SMU to be this good. I also expected Houston to be NIT quality since they clearly have the talent. I thought Temple was going to be NIT quality Temple. And I thought UCF, USF and Rutgers would all do what they usually do, which is passable performance.

All 5 of these teams are far worse than I expected.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

I think Gary Parrish has been reading the Boneyard for article ideas. The AAC is like a third world country. Rich people and poor people and no middle class.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...n-is-so-bad-that-its-actually-helping-the-top

The top half of the American Athletic Conference (Cincinnati, Louisville, SMU, Memphis and UConn) is a combined 31-2 against the bottom half of the American Athletic Conference (Houston, Rutgers, South Florida, Temple and UCF), and the reason is because the top half is way better than the bottom half. Nobody in the top half is lower than 34th in the KenPom ratings while nobody in the bottom half is higher than 165th, and that gap -- that 131-spotgap between fifth and sixth in the league standings -- is the reason why the American Athletic Conference will likely place five schools in next month's NCAA tournament.

Simply put, the bottom half isn't good enough to threaten the top half.

Oh man, we have one of those 2 losses. What was the other one?

This is the problem of the new Big East too much parity is hurting that new league. But for us in the American the disparity from the top and bottom will probably be the only reason the league gets 5 bids despite the conference being ranked 9th in nation in RPI. But I don't know if its something to be happy about or not. In the short run it makes the American look like a legit league with 5 out of 10 teams in the NCAA... but in the long term with Louisville leaving and some weak programs joining next year I see very little hope of ever getting five bids in the NCAAs in the future. I hope I'm wrong, but lets enjoy while it last

 

[metsfan2323]

Things will even out a little next year, each of the unranked teams are returning the bulk of their rosters and minutes played. SMU has already benefited from the halo effect of their league upgrade, the rest will get there.

 

[HuskyBoi]

The conference didn't live up to what I imagined for this year. The bottom half is really bad. But, coming into the year, UCF and USF beat UConn the last time we played them. Temple was giving people fits in the NCAAT last year. Hell, UConn lost to Houston THIS year. And who gives a damn about Rutgers? So, it's not a matter of these being sucky teams in a sucky conference, it's a matter of them sucking really badly all at once and all together. The suckage has little to do with conference affiliation. Two were BE teams, one was a good A10, and the CUSA team actually beat UConn.

Now, next year when Louisville leaves and Tulane, Tulsa and East Carolina arrive (oh my god), then you can blame it on the conference.

But not this year.

Well, I believe Temple's 2 leading scorers Khalif Wyatt and someone else left to play professionally, and Fran Dunphy failed to replace him with a proper bench as well, so that's why Temple was a team giving people fits last year.

 

[noeynox]

The conference didn't live up to what I imagined for this year. The bottom half is really bad. But, coming into the year, UCF and USF beat UConn the last time we played them. Temple was giving people fits in the NCAAT last year. Hell, UConn lost to Houston THIS year. And who gives a damn about Rutgers? So, it's not a matter of these being sucky teams in a sucky conference, it's a matter of them sucking really badly all at once and all together. The suckage has little to do with conference affiliation. Two were BE teams, one was a good A10, and the CUSA team actually beat UConn.

Now, next year when Louisville leaves and Tulane, Tulsa and East Carolina arrive (oh my god), then you can blame it on the conference.

But not this year.

Really need Temple to get back to NCAA tourney worthy and for at least one team to surprise. It could get much uglier.

 

[Hi-Low]

Why read anything Gary Parrish writes?

He's an AP voter that has ranked UConn in top 25 most of the year...has us at #17 now.

 

[ctchamps]

I wonder what Cuse and Georgetown fans thought about UConn during the early period when UConn was a perennial 8-9 team in the BE.

Sometimes things change. Now Cuse fans are praying that UConn becomes irrelevant. Maybe it will happen maybe it won't. I'm not betting it will happen.

The SEC has survived in bb for a long period of time with only one legitimate powerhouse. Then Tennessee became relevant and more recently Florida. The Pac was UCLA and Zona.

The AAC is UConn with Memphis, Cinci, Temple and hopefully one other. The key is for the bottom group to become more Providence like and less Seton Hall and DePaul like. It's up to those schools to make the commitment to getting coaches who can recruit and develop players. It certainly is possible. Basketball is a two year cycle to get a decent group of players onto a court. Could be one year with an impact recruit or two.

SMU will be good for a couple of years at least. So will UConn. Memphis and Cinci will most likely have a down year next year because of graduation but they have decent recruiting classes so how far they drop is unknown. And Ville is gone,

Next year should be a drop relative to this season but it doesn't necessarily signify a long term trend. UConn, Cincy and Memphis are committed to having a good bb product. Temple, the Texas schools and the Florida schools are the unknown. I'm mildly optimistic that several of them will upgrade. I also think ECU is a dark horse. They treat athletics seriously. So in the very short term, this season, the AAC will get some creed. Next year people will bury it, just like they did with UConn over the last couple of years over the incidences of the APR and JC's retirement. My take is that similar to UConn's resurgence with KO I expect the AAC to prove these short term prognosticators wrong.

 

[ctchamps]

He's an AP voter that has ranked UConn in top 25 most of the year...has us at #17 now.

A little history with Gary and his treatment of UConn that rubbed a bunch of us the wrong way. Maybe things have changed with him now that JC is no longer a coach. Could have been a personal thing between them and not a thing with Parrish and UConn.

 

[upstater]

I wonder what Cuse and Georgetown fans thought about UConn during the early period when UConn was a perennial 8-9 team in the BE.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but on the other hand, since UConn was an afterthought when it was added, it likely surprised these teams for the first 4 years since UConn had winning records and beat the best teams. The cratering didn't happen until 4 or 5 years into the conference.

 

[ctchamps]

I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but on the other hand, since UConn was an afterthought when it was added, it likely surprised these teams for the first 4 years since UConn had winning records and beat the best teams. The cratering didn't happen until 4 or 5 years into the conference.

Thanks for the correction. Just sloppy on my part. I was going to be specific and should have been because there is little that gets by this group. The salient point of course is that things are unpredictable and in a constant state of flux. There really is no way of knowing the future.

Certainly the AAC is at a distinct disadvantage relative to the P5 conferences and that could impact UConn's future negatively. On the other hand there are things going on that can impact the P5 set up adversely such as the concern over concussions and the impact that is having on football. That's a huge game changer that remains to be seen how it plays out.

As they say we'll all know what happens in 20 minutes.

 

[metsfan2323]

Temple, the Texas schools and the Florida schools are the unknown. I'm mildly optimistic that several of them will upgrade. I also think ECU is a dark horse. They treat athletics seriously. So in the very short term, this season, the AAC will get some creed. Next year people will bury it, just like they did with UConn over the last couple of years over the incidences of the APR and JC's retirement. My take is that similar to UConn's resurgence with KO I expect the AAC to prove these short term prognosticators wrong.

I agree with you on all of this, I also think Tulsa is very capable of being a good basketball program in the near future.

 

[tzznandrew]

Ultimately, the league needs 3-4 Top 50 RPI teams (UConn, Memphis, Cincy and either SMU or Temple), 3-4 RPI 51-100 (SMU/Temple, Houston? USF? UCF?), and then 1-2 RPI 101-150 teams. The remaining 2-4 can be sub 150 if there are 4-6 Top 50 RPI, and 10-14 Top 100 RPI.

 

[tzznandrew]

I agree with you on all of this, I also think Tulsa is very capable of being a good basketball program in the near future.

While I'm bearish on this conference (and I'm not sure the logic behind Tulsa), I think Tulsa might not be as bad as everyone is suggesting. They're better, according to Pomeroy, than the bottom 5 teams already. And they actually have a history of some success in the last 20 years or so. They had multiple tournament runs in the 1990s, and were in the E8 in 2000. That's not super impressive, but it is better than DePaul has done over that time--and better than every single bottom-5 school (save Temple) did over that time. So they might not be as bad as people are making them out.

Are people confused because Tulsa sort of looks like Tulane?

 

[upstater]

Thanks for the correction. Just sloppy on my part. I was going to be specific and should have been because there is little that gets by this group. The salient point of course is that things are unpredictable and in a constant state of flux. There really is no way of knowing the future.

Certainly the AAC is at a distinct disadvantage relative to the P5 conferences and that could impact UConn's future negatively. On the other hand there are things going on that can impact the P5 set up adversely such as the concern over concussions and the impact that is having on football. That's a huge game changer that remains to be seen how it plays out.

As they say we'll all know what happens in 20 minutes.

I agreed with everything else you said. The Texas schools, as I see it, are the key because of the talent they have down there, and the fact they are city schools. It looks like the SMU fans are behind them but the Houston fans are apathetic, despite the fact that they've brought in a bunch of good players such as House and Knowles. It could be coaching. I expect Temple to come back and for Cincy to keep going (they just extended Cronin). Memphis may actually benefit from having some more continuity instead of all these transfers in/transfers out. The Nichols kid, if he sticks around, could anchor a pretty formidable team.

 

[Inyatkin]

While I'm bearish on this conference (and I'm not sure the logic behind Tulsa), I think Tulsa might not be as bad as everyone is suggesting. They're better, according to Pomeroy, than the bottom 5 teams already. And they actually have a history of some success in the last 20 years or so. They had multiple tournament runs in the 1990s, and were in the E8 in 2000. That's not super impressive, but it is better than DePaul has done over that time--and better than every single bottom-5 school (save Temple) did over that time. So they might not be as bad as people are making them out.

Are people confused because Tulsa sort of looks like Tulane?

Isn't the entire run of success directly attributable to Bill Self? That's not easily replicable.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I expected these 5 teams to be good. I'm on record as expecting SMU to be this good. I also expected Houston to be NIT quality since they clearly have the talent. I thought Temple was going to be NIT quality Temple. And I thought UCF, USF and Rutgers would all do what they usually do, which is passable performance.

All 5 of these teams are far worse than I expected.

I told you dump ECU for BB and add someone like VCU or Wichita State.
I expect Temple to be better in the future. Conferences like the AAC only exist for individual members to leave. One or two basketball onlies create money this conference lacks.

 

[ctchamps]

While I'm bearish on this conference (and I'm not sure the logic behind Tulsa), I think Tulsa might not be as bad as everyone is suggesting. They're better, according to Pomeroy, than the bottom 5 teams already. And they actually have a history of some success in the last 20 years or so. They had multiple tournament runs in the 1990s, and were in the E8 in 2000. That's not super impressive, but it is better than DePaul has done over that time--and better than every single bottom-5 school (save Temple) did over that time. So they might not be as bad as people are making them out.

Are people confused because Tulsa sort of looks like Tulane?

As much as I would jump up and down by an invite into the ACC I know my excitement would be short lived whenever the ACC tournament came around and NC and Duke are getting all the conference hype.

Certainly if UConn were to get into the ACC and have a decade of dominance in that conference I'd feel differently. I'm not so sure I would be thrilled by a BC slide to irrelevance. Syracuse is enjoying this season because they are dominating the conference and it's new. We'll see how things play out for them. Maybe Cuse will be the exception to the rule. The other BE teams that joined the ACC have a long history of watching their decent teams become worse.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

AAC needs to invite Wichita State for basketball only. It will make the conference better overall. God knows we need some more decent OOC games.

 

[freescooter]

Temple just happens to be having an awful year, but I doubt they stay there too long. They are a program with a pretty distinguished history and have been good under Dunphy. So I'm noty overly concerned about them. I admit to being surprised by SMU. they are better than I thought. So my view is UConn, Cincy, Memphis, Temple, SMU all make up the upper echelon most of the time. I don't put too much stock in conference RPI. Individual RPI matters. Conference RPI not so much. It can mean a bunch of mediocre teams (Faux Big East) with none that bad but none that anyone expects to to go anywhere. It can mean the AAC with are real split personality. Or really the SEC with a couple of real top teams but a bunch that don't scare anyone, even the dreck from other conferences. And as I've said 100 times before, the way RPI is calculated makes bad teams in good conferences look much better than they really are, since you essentially get participation points.

Long term I'm not so much concerned that UConn won't be a tournament team mostly. My concern is the lower RPI of the dreck impacts seeding and ultimately any chance of being more than a Sweet 16ish team year in a good year and 1 and done most of the time. When something like 87% of Final Four teams have been seeded 3 or higher since the Tournament went to 64 teams (the paper is out there somewhere but its on some Statistics website, not a sports one) you can see how important seeding is to tournament success.